CAR_Public/990406.MBX              C L A S S  A C T I O N  R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, April 6, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 43

                            Headlines

ADVANCED MICRO: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in California
CHS ELECTRONICS: Zwerling Schachter Files Complaint in Florida
DSP COMMUNICATIONS: April 9 Hearing on $3 Million Settlement
FORD MOTOR: 7 of 20 Lease Agreement Disclosure Cases Dismissed
FORD MOTOR: Asks for Review of Air Bag Venue & Dismissal

FORD MOTOR: Avoids Ignition Switch Class Certification
FORD MOTOR: Defending Four Defective Paint Cases at Year-End
FORD MOTOR: Flat Glass Price Fixing Discovery Continues
FORD MOTOR: Ford/Citibank Visa Rebate Program Discovery Underway
FORD MOTOR: Lifetime Service Guarantee Case Moved to CA Fed Ct

FORD MOTOR: Thick Film Ignition Module Trial Commences April 5
FORD MOTOR: Will Seek Dismissal of Lease Residual Litigation
INFORMATION ANALYSIS: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in Virginia
LOUISIANA PACIFIC: OSB Siding Claims Exceed Settlement Fund
PARTY CITY: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Complaint in New Jersey

PARTY CITY: Stull Stull Files Complaint
PATHOGENESIS CORP.: Wechsler Harwood Files Washington Suit
PATHOGENESIS CORP.: Zwerling Schachter Files Washington Suit
SAFESKIN CORPORATION: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in California
SAFESKIN CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Files Suit in California

STAFFMARK, INC.: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in California
TOTAL RENAL: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in California

                            *********

ADVANCED MICRO: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
(NYSE: AMD) and its Chairman and CEO, Walter J. Sanders, III.
The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and is on behalf of all who purchased AMD securities
between October 6, 1998 and March 8, 1999.


CHS ELECTRONICS: Zwerling Schachter Files Complaint in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit for violations of the federal securities laws against
CHS Electronics, Inc. (NYSE: HS) and certain officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of all
persons who purchased CHS common stock between May 5, 1998
through March 22, 1999.

The complaint charges CHS and certain officers and directors
with violations of the Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants
issued a series of false and misleading statements concerning
the Company's revenue and net income, starting with an
announcement by CHS of strong income and sales gains. In
reality, gains for the quarter were due to a one time foreign
exchange windfall.

Such material misstatements and deceptions by the defendants
forced the Company to restate its 2Q and 3Q of Fiscal 1998.
Because of the issuance of such false and misleading statements,
the price of CHS common stock was artificially inflated
throughout the Class Period.


DSP COMMUNICATIONS: April 9 Hearing on $3 Million Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
On May 12, 1997, a class action lawsuit was filed against DSP
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and several of its officers and directors
in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara Country. A
second, identical lawsuit was filed on May 22, 1997.  The
complaints, which were consolidated, alleged that the Company
and certain of its officers and directors violated California
securities laws in connection with certain statements allegedly
made during the first quarter of 1997, and sought damages in an
unspecified amount, interest, attorney's fees and other costs,
and other equitable and injunctive relief.

On February 26, 1998, two of the plaintiffs in the state action
filed a similar complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The complaint made the same
allegations as the amended complaint filed in state court, but
charged violations of federal securities laws.

The Company has executed an agreement to settle these lawsuits.
Under the agreement, the claims will be settled for $3,000,000,
which will be funded by insurance proceeds.  The settlement is
subject to approval by the court.  The court has set a date of
April 9, 1999 for hearing on final approval.


FORD MOTOR: 7 of 20 Lease Agreement Disclosure Cases Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty purported class action lawsuits have been filed in
various courts against Ford Motor Credit Company and, in all but
three cases, Primus Automotive Financial Services, Inc., a
subsidiary of Ford Credit. The lawsuits, each of which purports
to be brought on behalf of a statewide class, allege that Ford
Credit and Primus leasing contracts improperly failed to
disclose acquisition and administrative fees that are included
in the amount of a customer's monthly lease payment.  Plaintiffs
seek compensatory damages in the amount of all such undisclosed
fees, an injunction prohibiting the companies from continuing
the practice of not disclosing such fees, attorneys' fees,
interest, costs and in some cases, punitive damages.

Ford is seeking dismissal of all the lawsuits.  A Georgia
federal court and Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri
and Wisconsin state courts have recently dismissed seven of the
lawsuits, finding that itemization of monthly lease charges is
not required under federal or state law.


FORD MOTOR: Asks for Review of Air Bag Venue & Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------
One purported class action lawsuit is pending in Alabama state
court against Ford Motor Company alleging that air bags are
defective because they can cause injury, particularly to
children and small adults.  Plaintiffs allege that their
vehicles are unsuitable for transporting children and small
adults and, therefore, are not worth the purchase price they
paid.  They seek compensatory damages, including the alleged
diminution in value of their vehicles.  

The Alabama action appears to be nationwide in scope and
purports to represent owners of 1993 through 1996 (and some
1997) model year cars and light trucks with passenger air bags.  
The plaintiffs named as defendants Ford, General Motors
Corporation, Chrysler Corporation, and an Alabama automobile
dealership.  

The trial court denied defendants' motion for change of venue,
and the Alabama Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal on that
issue.  Ford has asked the court to reconsider that decision.  
Ford's motion to dismiss this action is pending.


FORD MOTOR: Avoids Ignition Switch Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In 1996, Ford Motor Company was served with fourteen purported
class action lawsuits alleging that certain 1983 to 1993 model
year vehicles were equipped with defective ignition switches
that could cause an electrical short circuit, resulting in smoke
and fire damage.  

Most of the suits were brought on behalf of plaintiffs who have
not experienced a problem, but who claim that their vehicles
have diminished value because of the allegedly defective
switches.  Some of the lawsuits were purportedly brought on
behalf of plaintiffs who claim to have suffered fire or smoke
damage to their vehicles.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, as well as injunctive relief requiring, among other
things, that Ford replace the allegedly defective ignition
switch in all affected vehicles.

All fourteen lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial proceedings
in federal court in New Jersey.  In August 1997, the court
denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  In September
1997, the court dismissed all of the claims brought by the non-
incident class members except the implied warranty claims
brought under Louisiana law and the breach of contract claims.  

In May 1998, plaintiffs in the "incident" (smoke and fire
damage) cases filed an amended complaint which attempts to
consolidate all such claims in a single action.  The complaint
proposes alternative classes and several subclasses. The
plaintiffs have indicated that the proposed classes and
subclasses may be amended following further discovery.  In
August 1998, the court reaffirmed its denial of class
certification and ruled on plaintiffs' motion to remand the
actions, remanding one of the fourteen consolidated actions to
Alabama state court and retaining jurisdiction over the others.

In October 1998, plaintiffs in the non-incident cases filed a
motion to amend an earlier court ruling that dismissed with
prejudice the claims under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act and requested leave to file an amended complaint restating
these and other claims. The court denied the motion as to two of
the plaintiffs but allowed the third plaintiff to amend the
complaint to pursue breach of express warranty claims and claims
for injunctive relief and/or restitution under the California
Business and Professions Act.

In a related matter, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company filed a lawsuit in federal court in California in
January 1998 against Ford and United Technologies Automotive,
Inc. State Farm seeks damages for insurance claims it paid to
cover vehicle damage caused by allegedly defective ignition
switches, the deductible amounts paid by its insureds, other
compensatory damages, disgorgement of profits and attorneys'
fees and costs. Ford has moved to dismiss State Farm's claims
and obtained a transfer of the action to the New Jersey federal
court where the ignition switch class actions are pending.  
State Farm opposed the transfer.  

Also, a private insurer, the California State Automobile
Association Inter-insurance Bureau has filed a separate action
against Ford seeking to recover amounts it paid for 15 vehicle
fire claims allegedly caused by defective ignition switches.  
The Bureau's lawsuit has also been transferred to the New Jersey
federal court for consolidated pre-trial proceedings with the
other ignition switch-related lawsuits. Ford has moved to
dismiss the Bureau's complaint.


FORD MOTOR: Defending Four Defective Paint Cases at Year-End
------------------------------------------------------------
There are four purported class actions pending against Ford
Motor Company alleging defects in the paint processes used on
more than six million vehicles Ford manufactured in model years
1984 through 1993.

     A.  One case (Landry) is nationwide in scope and is pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana. In August 1998, the Landry court denied the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  In February 1999,
the Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' request to permit them
to appeal the class certification decision prior to trial.

     B.  In another case (Sheldon), a Texas state court
certified two subclasses of Texas residents for trial. The Texas
Court of Appeals affirmed the class certification order and
approved a bifurcated trial process that would require class
members to prove causation and damages in separate trials
following a classwide trial on the existence of a defect and
Ford's knowledge of the defect.  Ford appealed the class
certification to the Texas Supreme Court and oral argument was
heard in February 1999.  Ford is awaiting a ruling.

     C.  The third case, Nienhuis, was filed in Illinois state
court in May 1998. It raises the same allegations as Landry and
Sheldon with respect to a larger group of vehicles, and alleges
a nationwide class or, alternatively, a class of Illinois
residents.  Ford removed the action to federal court and, in
June 1998, the case was conditionally transferred to the
Louisiana federal court where Landry is pending.  The case was
later remanded to state court, and Ford's appeal of the remand
order is pending.

     D.  The fourth case, Clayman, was filed in Pennsylvania
state court and asserts, on behalf of Pennsylvania residents,
claims similar to those raised in Nienhuis.  Ford removed
Clayman to federal court and sought to have it consolidated with
Landry in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana. It too was remanded to state court.


FORD MOTOR: Flat Glass Price Fixing Discovery Continues
-------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company is a defendant in 14 purported class actions
brought on behalf of purchasers of flat glass alleging that Ford
and other manufacturers fixed prices and allocated markets in
violation of federal and state antitrust laws.  Twelve of the
class actions are nationwide in scope and pending in federal
court and the other two class actions are statewide in scope and
are pending in state courts.

The other defendants include Pilkington, Libbey-Owens Ford, AFG
Industries, PPG Industries, Asahi Glass, and Guardian
Industries.  Nineteen similar purported class actions are
pending in various courts in which Ford is not currently named
as a defendant.  A total of 28 federal cases have been
consolidated in a federal court in Pennsylvania for pretrial
proceedings.  

The parties are currently engaged in discovery related to class
certification.  In the actions involving Ford, the plaintiffs
seek economic and treble damages.


FORD MOTOR: Ford/Citibank Visa Rebate Program Discovery Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Following the June 1997 announcement of the termination of the
Ford/Citibank credit card rebate program, five purported
nationwide class actions and one purported statewide class
action were filed against Ford Motor Company; Citibank is also a
defendant in some of these actions.  The actions allege damages
in an amount up to $3,500 for each cardholder who obtained a
Ford/Citibank credit card in reliance on the rebate program and
who is precluded from accumulating discounts toward the purchase
or lease of new Ford vehicles after December 1997 as a result of
the termination of the rebate program.

Plaintiffs contend that defendants deceptively breached their
contract by unilaterally terminating the program, that
defendants have been unjustly enriched as a result of the
interest charges and fees collected from cardholders, and
further, that defendants conspired to deprive plaintiffs of the
benefits of their credit card agreement. Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages, or alternatively, reinstatement of the
rebate program, and punitive damages, costs, expenses and
attorneys' fees.

The five purported nationwide class actions were filed in state
courts in Alabama, Illinois, New York, Oregon and Washington,
and the purported statewide class action was filed in a
California state court. The Alabama court has conditionally
certified a class consisting of Alabama residents.  Ford removed
all of the cases to federal court, which consolidated and
transferred the cases to federal court in Washington for
pretrial proceedings.

In September 1998, Ford and Citibank jointly filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated lawsuit pending before the court in
Washington.  The motion to dismiss was denied in November 1998
and the parties are currently pursuing pretrial discovery.

The plaintiffs in the Oregon and Alabama cases have moved to
remand their cases to state court.


FORD MOTOR: Lifetime Service Guarantee Case Moved to CA Fed Ct
--------------------------------------------------------------
In June 1998, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Ford Motor Company in California state court challenging the
legality of Ford's termination of the Lifetime Service Guarantee
program as of January 1, 1992. Plaintiff alleges that the
program, which ran from 1983 until the program's termination
date, constituted a product warranty that could not be
terminated. Plaintiff alleges claims for violation of the
federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of contract,
negligent misrepresentation, violation of the California Song-
Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, violation of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and declaratory
relief.  

The Magnuson-Moss and declaratory relief claims are alleged on
behalf of a purported nationwide class.  The breach of contract,
negligent misrepresentation, and Song-Beverly claims are alleged
on behalf of a purported subclass of California residents.  The
CLRA and UCL claims are alleged on behalf of "the general
public" ostensibly under "private attorney general" provisions
in those statutes.  Plaintiff claims compensatory, exemplary,
and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, civil penalties,
disgorgement, and interest in unspecified amounts, as well as an
injunction compelling Ford to reinstate the Lifetime Service
Guarantee program.  

Ford has removed the case to federal court in California.  The
parties are currently engaged in pretrial discovery.


FORD MOTOR: Thick Film Ignition Module Trial Commences April 5
--------------------------------------------------------------
Six purported class actions are pending in state courts on
behalf of owners and lessees of 1983 through 1995 model year
Ford vehicles containing a distributor-mounted thick film
ignition (TFI) module.  The plaintiffs allege that distributor-
mounted TFI modules are defective because they have a high
propensity to fail due to exposure to engine heat, causing the
engine to stumble, stall, or not start.  

The plaintiffs in these cases seek pre-and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees, disgorgement of profits, compensatory
damages, punitive damages, notice to the public, and the recall
and retrofit of all vehicles with the allegedly defective TFI
modules from Ford Motor Company.  

The cases are pending in Alabama, California, Illinois,
Maryland, Tennessee and Washington.  The Alabama and Tennessee
cases were conditionally certified as nationwide class actions
(excluding California).  The cases in Illinois, Maryland and
Washington purport to be regional class actions, and the
California case is statewide in scope.  

The California case is the "lead" case and proceedings in the
other cases are stayed.  The court has certified a class of
California residents who currently own or lease the subject
vehicles and residents who purchased such vehicles when they
were new.  The court also certified a sub-class of consumers
pursuing Consumer Legal Remedies Act claims, bringing the total
class to approximately 3.2 million members. In the unlikely
event that plaintiffs recovered fully on all of their claimed
damages, the total award in the California action would exceed
$4 billion.

Trial in the California case is scheduled for April 5, 1999.

The trial court recently denied Ford's motions to decertify the
class and for summary judgment. Ford is seeking leave to appeal
some of those rulings.  If leave to appeal is denied, Ford will
have the right to appeal after trial if necessary.


FORD MOTOR: Will Seek Dismissal of Lease Residual Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
In January 1998 in connection with a case pending in Illinois
state court, Ford and Ford Credit were served with a summons and
intervention counterclaim complaint relating to Ford Motor
Credit Company's leasing practices (Higginbotham v. Ford
Credit). The counterclaim plaintiff, Carla Higginbotham, is a
member of a class that has been conditionally certified for
settlement purposes in Shore v. Ford Credit.

In the Shore case, Ford Credit commenced an action for
deficiency against Virginia Shore, a Ford Credit lessee.  Shore
counterclaimed for purported violations of the Truth-in-Leasing
Act (alleging that certain lease charges were excessive) and the
Truth-in-Lending Act (alleging that the lease lacked clarity).  
Shore purported to represent a class of all similarly situated
lessees.  Ford was not a party to the Shore case.  Higginbotham
objected to the proposed settlement of the Shore case,
intervened as a named defendant, filed separate counterclaims
against Ford Credit, and joined Ford as an additional
counterclaim defendant.

Higginbotham asserts claims against Ford Credit for violations
of the Consumer Leasing Act, declaratory judgment concerning the
enforceability of early termination provisions in Ford Credit's
leases, and fraud. She also asserts a claim against Ford Credit
and Ford for conspiracy to violate the Truth-in-Lending Act.  
The Higginbotham counterclaims allege that Ford Credit inflates
the residual values of its leased vehicles, which results in
lower monthly lease payments but higher termination fees for
lessees who exercise their right of early termination.
Higginbotham claims that the early termination fees were not
adequately disclosed on the lease form and that the fees are
excessive and illegal because of the allegedly inflated residual
values. She also alleges that Ford dictated the residual values
to Ford Credit and thereby participated in an unlawful
conspiracy.

This case was stayed pending the approval/rejection of the
settlement in Shore. In November 1998, the court issued a ruling
that rejected the proposed settlement in Shore.  Consequently,
the Higginbotham case is proceeding and Ford Credit is in the
process of responding to discovery requests.  Ford intends to
remove the case to federal court and move to dismiss the
counterclaims.


INFORMATION ANALYSIS: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP filed a class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
against Information Analysis, Inc. (Nasdaq: IAIC) and certain of
its officers and directors. The suit is on behalf of all who
purchased Information Analysis common stock between February 26,
1998 and September 28, 1998.


LOUISIANA PACIFIC: OSB Siding Claims Exceed Settlement Fund
-----------------------------------------------------------
LOUISIANA PACIFIC CORP. has been named as a defendant in
numerous class action and non-class action proceedings, brought
on behalf of various persons or purported classes of persons
(including nationwide classes in the United States and Canada)
who own or have purchased or used OSB (oriented strand board)
siding manufactured by L-P, because of alleged unfair business
practices, breach of warranty, misrepresentation, conspiracy to
defraud, and other theories related to alleged defects,
deterioration, or failure of OSB siding products.

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon has
given final approval to a settlement between L-P and a
nationwide class composed of all persons who own, have owned, or
subsequently acquire property on which L-P's OSB siding was
installed prior to January 1, 1996, excluding persons who timely
opted out of the settlement and persons who are members of the
settlement class in the Florida litigation described below.

Under the settlement agreement, an eligible claimant whose claim
is filed prior to January 1, 2003 (or earlier in certain cases)
and is approved by an independent claims administrator, is
entitled to receive from the settlement fund established under
the agreement a payment equal to the replacement cost
(determined by a third-party construction cost estimator and
currently estimated to be in the range of $2.20 to $6.40 per
square foot depending on the type of product and geographic
location) of damaged siding, reduced by a specific adjustment
(of up to 65 percent) based on the age of the siding. Class
members who previously submitted or resolved claims under any
other warranty or claims program of L-P may be entitled to
receive the difference between the amount payable under the
settlement agreement and the amount previously paid. The extent
of damage to OSB siding at each claimant's property is
determined by an independent adjuster in accordance with a
specified protocol. Settlement payments are not subject to
adjustment for improper maintenance or installation.

A claimant who is dissatisfied with the amount to be paid under
the settlement may elect to pursue claims against L-P in a
binding arbitration seeking compensatory damages without regard
to the amount of payment calculated under the settlement
protocol. A claimant who elects to pursue an arbitration claim
must prove his entitlement to damages under any available legal
theory, and L-P may assert any available defense, including
defenses that otherwise had been waived under the settlement
agreement. If the arbitrator reduces the damage award otherwise
payable to the claimant because of a finding of improper
installation, the claimant may pursue a claim against the
contractor/builder to the extent the award was reduced.

The settlement requires L-P to pay $275 million into the
settlement fund in seven annual installments beginning in mid-
1996: $100 million, $55 million, $40 million, $30 million, $20
million, $15 million, and $15 million. As of December 31, 1998,
L-P had funded the first three installments. L-P also had
funded a significant portion of the last four installments
through the Early Payment Program discussed below. If at any
time after the fourth year of the settlement period the amount
of approved claims (paid and pending) were to equal or exceed
$275 million, then the settlement agreement would terminate as
to all claims in excess of $275 million unless L-P timely elects
to provide additional funding within 12 months thereafter equal
to the lesser of (i) the excess of unfunded claims over $275
million or (ii) $50 million and, if necessary to satisfy
unfunded claims, a second payment within 24 months equal to the
lesser of (i) the remaining unfunded amount or (ii) $50 million.
If the total payments to the settlement fund are insufficient to
satisfy in full all approved claims filed prior to January 1,
2003, then L-P may elect to satisfy the unfunded claims by
making additional payments into the settlement fund at the end
of each of the next two 12-month periods or until all claims are
paid in full, with each additional payment being in an amount
equal to the greater of (i) 50 percent of the aggregate sum of
all remaining unfunded approved claims or (ii) 100 percent of
the aggregate amount of unfunded approved claims, up to a
maximum of $50 million. If L-P fails to make any such additional
payment, all class members whose claims remain unsatisfied from
the settlement fund may pursue any available legal remedies
against L-P without regard to the release of claims provided in
the settlement agreement.

If L-P makes all payments required under the settlement
agreement, including all additional payments as specified above,
class members will be deemed to have released L-P from all
claims for damaged OSB siding, except for claims arising under
their existing 25-year limited warranty after termination of the
settlement agreement. The settlement agreement does not cover
consequential damages resulting from damage to OSB Inner-Seal
siding or damage to utility grade OSB siding (sold without any
express warranty), either of which could create additional
claims. In addition to payments to the settlement fund, L-P was
required to pay fees of class counsel in the amount of $26.25
million, as well as expenses of administering the settlement
fund and inspecting properties for damage and certain other
costs. After accruing interest on undisbursed funds and
deducting class notification costs, prior claims costs
(including payments advanced to homeowners in urgent
circumstances) and payment of claims under the settlement, as of
December 31, 1998, approximately $5.8 million remained of the
$195 million paid into the fund to date.

The claims submitted to the claims administrator to date
substantially exceed the $275 million of payments that L-P is
required to make under the settlement agreement. As calculated
under the terms of the settlement, claims submitted and
inspected exceeded $500 million at December 31, 1998, compared
to $475 million at September 30, 1998. Both figures include
approximately $18 million of claims paid directly by L-P to
claimants under the settlement agreement prior to the
establishment of the settlement fund. L-P has not decided
whether it will provide the optional funding discussed above in
excess of the required $275 million after the fourth year of the
settlement, to the extent that it still remains an issue
following implementation of the Early Payment Program and Second
Settlement Fund discussed below, under which L-P effectively has
paid a substantial portion of the claims that otherwise
potentially would have been payable out of the first two $50
million optional payments. Under the terms of the settlement, L-
P must make a decision regarding the optional funding by August
2000. As an alternative to making additional payments, L-P could
elect to pursue other options, including allowing the settlement
agreement to terminate, entitling claimants with unsatisfied
claims to pursue available legal remedies against L-P.

On October 26, 1998, L-P announced an agreement to offer early
payments to eligible claimants who have submitted valid and
approved claims under the original settlement agreement (the
"Early Payment Program") and to establish an additional $125
million fund to pay all other approved claims that are filed
before December 31, 1999 (the "Second Settlement Fund").

The Early Payment Program applies to all claimants who are
entitled to be paid from the $80 million of mandatory payments
that remain to be paid under the settlement and to all claimants
who otherwise would be paid from the proceeds of the two
optional $50 million payments that L-P may elect to make under
the settlement. The early payments from the $80 million are
discounted at a rate of 9% per annum calculated from their
original payment dates (1999-2002) to the date the early payment
offer was made. The early payments from the two $50 million
optional contributions are discounted at a rate of 12% per annum
calculated from 2001 and 2002. Claimants may accept or reject
the discounted early payments in favor of remaining under the
original settlement, but may not arbitrate the amount of their
early payments. As of March 5, 1999, approximately $128.0
million in Early Payment Program checks had been mailed and
$114.4 million had been cashed in settlement of claims;
approximately $5.0 million in checks remain to be mailed.

The $125 million Second Settlement Fund represents an
alternative source of payment for all approved claims not
eligible for the Early Payment Program and all new claims filed
before December 31, 1999. In early 2000, claimants electing to
participate in the Second Settlement Fund will be offered a pro
rata share of the fund in complete satisfaction of their claims,
which they may accept or reject in favor of remaining under the
original settlement. Claimants who accept their pro rata share
may not file additional claims under the settlement or arbitrate
the amount of their payments. Claimants who elect not to
participate in the Second Settlement Fund remain bound by the
terms of the original settlement. If L-P is dissatisfied with
the number of claimants who elect to be paid from the Second
Settlement Fund, L-P may refuse to proceed with funding at its
sole option. In that event, the Second Settlement Fund will be
canceled and all the claimants who had elected to participate in
it will be governed by the original settlement.

A settlement of a related class action in Florida was approved
by the Circuit Court for Lake County, Florida, on October 4,
1995. Under the settlement, L-P has established a claims
procedure pursuant to which members of the settlement class may
report problems with L-P's OSB siding and have their properties
inspected by an independent adjuster, who will measure the
amount of damage and also determine the extent to which improper
design, construction, installation, finishing, painting, and
maintenance may have contributed to any damage. The maximum
payment for damaged siding is $3.40 per square foot for lap
siding and $2.82 per square foot for panel siding, subject to
reduction by up to 75 percent for damage resulting from improper
design, construction, installation, finishing, painting, or
maintenance, and also subject to reduction for age of siding
more than three years old. L-P has agreed that the deduction
from the payment to a member of the Florida class will be not
greater than the deduction computed for a similar claimant under
the national settlement agreement described above. Class members
will be entitled to make claims until October 4, 2000.

   Other OSB Matters

Three separate purported class actions on behalf of owners and
purchasers of properties in which L-P's OSB panels were used for
flooring, sheathing, or underlayment have been consolidated in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California under the caption Agius v. Louisiana-Pacific
Corporation. The actions seek damages and equitable relief for
alleged fraud, misrepresentation, breach of warranty,
negligence, and improper trade practices related to alleged
improprieties in testing, product certification, and marketing
of OSB structural panels, and alleged premature deterioration of
such panels.

A separate state court action entitled Carney v. Louisiana-
Pacific Corporation is pending in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the City and County of San Francisco,
seeking relief under California consumer protection statutes
based on similar allegations. On February 27, 1998, the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
entered an order approving a settlement that would resolve the
above actions. A final order approving the settlement is
expected pending resolution of an appeal by a single claimant.

The settlement class, other than persons who opted out, is
generally composed of all persons who purchased L-P OSB
sheathing or acquired real property or structures in the United
States containing L-P OSB sheathing between January 1, 1984, and
October 22, 1997, but only if they have retained ownership of
the product. Under the settlement agreement, an eligible
claimant who files a claim prior to October 22, 2017, upon
review of the claim by the claims administrator, will be
entitled to recover the reasonable cost of repair or replacement
of any L-P OSB sheathing determined to have failed to perform
its essential function as warranted and not occasioned by
misuse, negligent or intentional misconduct of a third party or
an event over which L-P had no control. The settlement agreement
also provides for payment of a $1.5 million grant to the
University of California Forest Products Laboratory and
reasonable attorney fees of class counsel.

In accordance with the terms of the settlement, L-P exercised
its right to go forward with the claims process prior to the
resolution of the appeal and began sending claim form packages
on August 19, 1998. As of December 31, 1998, 4,454 notice
packages had been mailed, 2,282 claim form packages had been
mailed, 96 claim forms had been received, and 24 claims had been
verified as valid and forwarded for inspection. To date, five
claims have been inspected by third-party inspectors; all five
have been denied and resulted in no cash settlements.


PARTY CITY: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Complaint in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP has filed a class action lawsuit
against Party City Corporation (Nasdaq: PCTY) and certain of its
officers and directors in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey. The suit is brought on behalf of all
who acquired the common stock of Party City between July 9, 1998
and March 18, 1999.

The complaint charges Party City and certain officers and
directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The complaint
alleges that defendants issued a series of false statements and
failed to disclose material facts concerning the Company's
financial condition and compliance with certain loan covenants.

Because of the issuance of a series of false and misleading
statements, the price of Party City common stock was
artificially inflated. Prior to the disclosure of the adverse
facts, certain insiders and directors sold 98,000 shares of
Party City common stock to the unsuspecting investing public at
artificially inflated prices, and over $1.5 million in proceeds
was realized as a result of these sales.


PARTY CITY: Stull Stull Files Complaint
---------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody has filed a class action lawsuit for
violations of federal securities laws on behalf of purchasers of
Party City Corporation (NASDAQ:PCTY) securities between October
22, 1998 to March 19, 1999. Defendants include Party City and
certain of its officers and directors.

The Complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-
b(5) by issuing false and misleading statements regarding Party
City's financial and business conditions.


PATHOGENESIS CORP.: Wechsler Harwood Files Washington Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP, filed a class action
lawsuit on March 30, 1999 in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington, against Pathogenesis
Corporation (Nasdaq: PGNS) and certain of its directors and
officers on behalf of all persons who acquired shares of PGNS'
publicly traded securities between January 25, 1999 and March
22, 1999.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws (Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934) by misrepresenting or failing to disclose
material information about PGNS's financial condition.

The complaint alleges that PGNS and certain of its officers and
directors participated in a fraudulent scheme to misrepresent
the Company's sales of its primary product, the antibiotic
Tobramysin ("TOBI"). Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to
disclose that PGNS' increased sales of TOBI in the fourth
quarter of 1998 primarily resulted from wholesalers' overstock
purchase made to avoid PGNS' imminent increase in TOBI's price,
rather than the increasing market acceptance of or growth in the
patient base for the drug.

The complaint also alleges that defendants failed to disclose
their knowledge that sales of the drug in the first quarter
would be depressed as a result of its fourth quarter 1998 sales
program. These misrepresentations are alleged to have caused
PGNS shares to trade at artificially inflated prices. When the
truth about the failure of TOBI to achieve the market acceptance
claimed by defendants was revealed, the price of PGNS stock
plummeted by over $22 per share or 70% per share to just $12 per
share.


PATHOGENESIS CORP.: Zwerling Schachter Files Washington Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling LLP filed a class action lawsuit
on March 30, 1999, in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington on behalf of all persons who
purchased securities or sold put options of PathoGenesis
Corporation (Nasdaq: PGNS) between January 25, 1999 and March
22, 1999.

The complaint charges PathoGenesis, and certain of its officers
and directors, with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements concerning the market
for its sole product, the antibiotic Tobramycin, a drug for the
treatment of cystic fibrosis.

The complaint further alleges that as a result of the issuance
of these statements, the price of PathoGenesis securities was
artificially inflated, providing an opportunity for the
Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board to
sell 10,000 shares of PathoGenesis common stock to the investing
public at artificially inflated prices, and realize proceeds
from these sales of approximately $475,000.


SAFESKIN CORPORATION: Abbey Gardy Files Complaint in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP filed a class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of Safeskin Corporation (Nasdaq: SFSK)
securities during the period October 28, 1998 through March 11,
1999.

The Complaint charges Safeskin and certain of its officers and
directors with violating the federal securities laws. The
plaintiff claims that defendants misrepresented and concealed
material facts concerning the Company's business and its
financial results and that certain officers sold Safeskin common
stock while failing to disclose material, adverse information
about the Company and its financial results.


SAFESKIN CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Files Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California against Safeskin Corporation (Nasdaq:
SFSK) and its officers and directors for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit is on behalf of all
who purchased Safeskin publicly traded securities between
February 18, 1998 and March 11, 1999.


STAFFMARK, INC.: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against StaffMark, Inc. (Nasdaq: STAF)
and certain of its officers and directors, charging violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit is on behalf of
all who purchased StaffMark common stock between October 8, 1998
and March 2, 1999.


TOTAL RENAL: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against Total Renal Care Holdings, Inc.
(NYSE: TRL) and its officers and directors for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit is on behalf of all
who purchased TRC securities between February 17, 1998 and
February 17, 1999.



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Princeton, NJ, and Beard
Group, Inc., Washington, DC. Peter A. Chapman, Editor.

Copyright 1999. All rights reserved. ISSN XXXX-XXXX.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers. Information
contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 301/951-6400.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *